Forum thread regarding this changeset:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/glastonbury-festival-temporary-event-mapping/132207

Hi,

It doesn't appear that this power line exists on aerial imagery - is this a historical line?

Hi Mateusz,

Definitely a tagging error (I blame JOSM autocomplete) - I've fixed it. Thanks!

Thanks! Yes, I am also checking the Esri imagery but Bing has slightly better resolution in most cases so I'm still mostly using that.

We're working on the Oh my Grid project to map power networks if you're interested: https://ohmygrid.org/

I think it makes sense that an offshore `building=*` should be assumed to be above the water unless it has `location=underwater`.

Ideally I'd like to show these on OpenInfraMap but it would involve dealing with all buildings, and I'd prefer not to!

They are above the sea - like oil platforms. This is the substation in question:

https://dudgeonoffshorewind.co.uk/img/gallery1/construction70.jpg

There's a mention of it here: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/rg12-1hn-amazon-data-services-uk-limited/

Thanks, and sorry for the hassle! I've deleted the cables in London.

Hi,

I note you've added these cables from the National Grid Eletricity Transmission network maps. Unfortunately these are not suitably licensed so we cannot use them in OpenStreetMap.

For more info on power network data and the licensing of it, see this wiki page:

osm.wiki/Power_networks/Great_Britain#Data_Sources

Ah, that's just an accident which happens when JOSM doesn't autocomplete the tag... I've removed them.

It should be caught by the JOSM "uncommon short key" validator rule, but these sometimes get buried under lots of other minor warnings when doing larger-scale power mapping and it's not immediately obvious.

Hi,

Can you explain which source you used as the basis for this change?

Cheers,

Russ

Aha, thanks for the tip! I'll sort that out when I have a moment.

Hi,

Please can you let me know what source you used for this underground power cable? We have to ensure that this is compatible with OpenStreetMap's license.

Cheers,

Russ

Hi,

Can I ask which data sources you used for this edit? Given that you've been improving the route of older power cables, it's presumably not just Bing. There isn't much public information on these routes which is legally acceptable to add to OSM.

Interesting one! In this case I'm very confident that the not:operator:wikidata tag is wrong - I'm not sure why that was set in the first place (especially without setting an operator:wikidata tag). I've removed it.

Yup, that's on my list to sort out.

Thanks, you're right - I've reverted that change. I didn't have time to look into it thoroughly and it seemed weird on account of the traffic lights not being mapped.

There are still some slip lanes missing, which I don't have time to correct at the moment.

There's a better plan in the planning application - https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/ reference 17/04351/LA document "HIGHWAYS GENERAL ARRANGEMENT (6 OF 11)". Confusingly it's rotated 90 degrees.

I believe the A58 roundabout also needs more work but it should at least be routable.

Cheers,

Russ

You're right - it was deleted in this changeset: osm.org/changeset/117983606

I don't know if there is any policy regarding this in Ukraine, but it looks like most other power plants and substations are still intact.

The power lines were unmapped here. I mapped them to join together the parts which were already there. Sorry if the changeset description was unclear.

Yeah, I'm not particularly keen on this either but there's not currently any consensus on the best way to tag these.

I think disused=yes might be the best approach actually. Maybe I'll just document that on the wiki and implement it on OpenInfraMap.